VB100% February 2007

VB 100% award , again ! No. 42 . Windows Vista fully protected ! Congratulations , ESET!

www.virusbtn.com

 

nothing new... they're detecting all ITW viruses and no FPs, as long as they know the viruses before... peace of cake. av-test.org is more reliable here, and I'm waiting also for av-comparatives.org test.

 

MS OneCare (and other, will not mention them) failed .

 

yes, I've seen and that amused me... Anyway, it's a good thing for NOD32 to get the award, but they have still to improve at adding signatures. That's my oppinion.

 

Congratulations, ESET!

 

vista users,

how can GDATA, mcafee, norman, MICROSOFT fail the vb100 for vista?

sounds poor to me.

 

Either because they didn't detect all the In-the-Wild malware or because they generated a false-positive alarm

 

I think the irony of M$'s own solution failing is staggering...

 

yes... shocking, but true.

 

我怎么不知道。

 

plus, NOD32 verified fastest at scanning executables

"NOD32 was rated the fastest in comparative testing of 15 antivirus products running on Microsoft Windows Vista Business Edition (32-bit)."

from here: http://www.eset.com/company/article.php?contentID=3150

 

Hi chinaboy, welcome to Wilders.

English only please. Many thanks for your understanding.

Cheers

 

I do not know how. - that's the translation of what chinaboy said.

 

chinaboy, use this to help you translate. They really will assist you but need it in English.
http://world.altavista.com/
then copy and paste your translation into the reply box for Wilders.

 

Are you sure av-test is more reliable than vb100％？I don't think so.Beacuse one of the tests says that Rising Antivirus is betterr than many antivirus，for example：symantec，VBA32，Dr.web and so on，but in fact Rising Antiviru is not good，if you use，you will konw it.

 

other translation :"why i dont know?"

 

Can anyone paste the results on other av's 2? I am wondering how far behind avira was.

 

Have YOU used Rising?

Anyway, the fact remains that most products that fail nowadays actually do so on technical reasons instead of actual detection rates. As long as Virus Bulletin insists on using only ~800 viruses, 2-year-old samples and releasing the virus list to vendors before the test, they'll continue to be irrelevent in providing authoritative testing in terms of detection rates as far as I'm concerned.

 

If it were just that easy, then every AV would pass. Most that fail do so because of false positives. A few missed detections as well, but more common are FPs.

 

As unfortunate as it is, there ARE products that don't even meet that low standard, or products that get failed on a technicality (wrong default settings, OS inconsistencies etc) or false positive. I just don't see why I should trust a product's detection rates simply because it's passed a test of 800 virus-only samples (trojans + other malware not included) and the vendor was informed of the virus samples used beforehand.

 

John Hawes, technical consultant at Virus Bulletin, said: "The items added to our set of known clean files this month mostly consisted of common items taken from the 'most-popular' lists of free download sites, so it is a concern that the additions have caused such an upsurge in false detections.
"A false positive can cause as much disruption as a virus infection. False warnings often lead end-users to delete valid files in the belief that they are some form of attack and the resultant damage can be significant," he added.

The entire article can be read here;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/64bitvista_av_tests/

Unlike other certification schemes, Virus Bulletin tests all products free of charge and does not allow re-testing. Virus Bulletin's comparative reviews also cover other performance aspects including detection rates against a selection of viruses never seen outside the lab of anti-virus vendors as well as looking at scanning speeds and performance overheads for anti-malware products.


I have never heard of a failure for settings before.

 

A technical consultant trumpeting the relevence of his organization's tests, hmm. For some reason I don't see how that means Virus Bulletin tests need to be taken any more seriously.

Ah nevermind, I see you edited your earlier post to attack from the FP angle instead.

 

FPs can create quite a mess. For the record I pay more attention to AV Comparatives and Av Test.org than I do to VB. Just playing devil's advocate.